San Joaquin County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report*

Recommendations 7

• R1
  1 No later than November 1, 2014, the Board of Trustees of each Reclamation District is to review their current legal services contract to assure it contains all services provided by the law firm and that the contract contains all relevant information required under Federal and State laws and regulations to assure reimbursement of permitted costs in the event of an emergency.
• R2
  No later than December 31, 2014, all Districts that do not have an adopted annual operating budget are to prepare the framework for an annual budget and utilize it for all subsequent fiscal years. 3.0 Are there more efficient organizations? The County's Reclamation Districts are small organizations. Only seven of the Districts responding to the survey indicated they have full time employees. Many have part-time employees and a few utilize outside contract employees to perform the work associated with the District. As previously discussed, most do not have administrative staff but instead use their legal firms to provide basic administrative, accounting and financial services. The lack of financial resources is the primary reason for the limited staffing. Twenty-four of the Districts have at least one Trustee with over 20 years of service on the Board. Because of the small populations in most of the Districts, the Grand Jury finds no cause for concern with this length in office. All Districts responded that their Trustees have filed the required Fair Political Practices Commission's "Statement of Economic Interest" (Form 700). Those Trustees who receive no compensation for service on the Boards are not required to take the training required under AB 1234. Because of the small size of the Districts, the Grand Jury investigated whether consolidation, dissolution or some other action could result in more cost savings and efficiencies. Districts are hesitant to undertake consolidation or other actions. Many have very limited resources and there are costs and other considerations associated with dissolution or other actions. These include: (1) The application/processing fees charged by LAFCo, legal fees to prepare, advertise and adopt the required legal actions; (2) Identifying who will provide the services the District provided, a finding LAFCo is required to make before approving any action; and (3) The potential personal liability of Trustees for either dissolving a District or assuming responsibility for another District where the flood control work has not been kept to standards. There is one small District that had the land filled in creating an island thus eliminating the need for reclamation activities. However, the cost of dissolution (LAFCo charges $10,350 for an application to dissolve a district) and potential residual liability does not make that action attractive to the District's property owners or Trustees. A District, responding to the survey, indicated that it is dormant and has had no activity for many years. Another District remains as a reclamation district but has no budget or activity. As a result, the District would be eligible for funding should the need arise without the time and expense of being re-established. A third District has been administratively taken over by a larger, independent agency when the reclamation land fell within the new agency's purview. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) requires each county LAFCo to conduct a review of the services provided by independent special districts within its jurisdiction. This is known as a Municipal Services Review (MSR). These are for the purpose of identifying and analyzing information about the governance structure and efficiency of these service providers and to identify opportunities to improve the quality, efficiency or cost effectiveness of local services. The law requires an MSR be conducted at least every five years. However, the State guidelines for preparing an MSR were not finalized until August 2003. The San Joaquin LAFCo has not conducted its review of Reclamation Districts. The delay has been the result of staff shortages and limited funding. LAFCo indicated that the review is being scheduled for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The Grand Jury reviewed the draft survey LAFCo proposes to use for its MSR for Districts. It found the breadth and range of information being requested should allow LAFCo to determine the effectiveness of current District services and to identify areas of potential increased effectiveness. If the MSR recommends consolidation, dissolution or other actions, LAFCo currently has the authority to waive or adjust the processing fees which may make it more feasible for the small Districts. Findings
• R3
  1 No later than November 1, 2014, as the agency responsible for addressing Reclamation Districts' level of services provided, LAFCo is to hold a meeting for all Reclamation Districts in the County to jointly discuss how the Districts can better provide services within current financial constraints.
• R4
  By September 1, 2014, the Stockton Unified School District is to modify the contract language of Exhibit G so that it is identical to the actual NCLB qualifications. Conclusion Since 2004 when the Stockton Unified School District after-school programs began to provide a more academic program, the quality of services to children has greatly improved. The programs have expanded and serve more students. The Community Partners strive to place the best individuals in schools to work with students but are faced with many challenges. The jobs are low-paying, many of the employees are students themselves and there is a very high rate of turnover. This creates impediments, particularly in the areas of hiring and training of personnel. It is imperative that these challenges be met as the safety of students and the quality of instruction are at stake. During interviews with Community Partners and with District administrators there appears to be a willingness to address these critical issues. The Grand Jury expects this will happen. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: grandjury@sjcourts.org. Appendicies
• R5
  The Tracy City Council adopt a policy by September 30, 2014, requiring the review of the current status of a business' State license when any applicable City contract is proposed to be amended or renewed. Conclusion The Mayor and City Council are expected by the citizens they represent to require that their staff conduct thorough reviews of all information regarding City matters prior to making recommendations to the City Council. If staff and management are not held to a high standard of performance regarding their review process on all City matters, the degree of accuracy for the information provided to the City Council could be in question. This could lead to decisions being made by City Council that are based on flawed facts, as well as actions being taken that are not in the best interest of the citizens of Tracy. This investigation discovered no evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegations of a secret and illegal business agreement having officially been entered into between a local developer, City staff, and the City Council. However, there is an alarming number of City actions taken directly related to the contingencies in the AAM that bring cause for concern. This investigation discovered that City staff and City Council in Tracy made recommendations and took actions that if completed would have met most of the contingencies listed in the AAM. This could have brought about changes to the Tracy Airport that would permanently affect its current uses. The Grand Jury questions whether these were a specific quid pro quo between the City and the developer for political or other considerations, or just a City attitude of knowing what the results would be but "wink-wink" we won't say anything. There are many ways to deceive the public – don't give complete information; give partially accurate information; or turn a blind eye to the real issue and hope no one notices. These can be used by private enterprise, City staff or elected City officials. Whatever the reason, whatever the approach, there is a victim. In this case it is the City's credibility with its citizens. City Council Members are the sentinels of the City and the citizens they represent. If the City Council and staff conducted City business as if they were in agass room with unobstructed view by the citizenry, then transparency would not be an issue and the trust from the people they represent would be earned. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of one member of the jury. This juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation including interviews, deliberations, and the writing and approval of the report. Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court of receipt of the report. Tracy City Council shall respond to all of the findings and recommendations contained in this report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at grandjury@sjcourts.org Appendices
• R6
  1.1 Minutes of each Audit Committee meeting be included as a City Council agenda item.
• R7
  1 The City of Stockton by September 30, 2014, submit a request to the League of California Cities Board of Directors to establish training programs for local elected officials to learn about the various aspects of municipal finance similar to the depth and content of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) courses.